1 | P a g e

4.SOCIAL THINKERS
(a) Karl Marx- Historical materialism, mode of production, alienation, class struggle.
Marxs general ideas about society are known as his theory of historical materialism. Materialism is the basis
of his sociological thought because, for Marx, material conditions or economic factors affect the structure
and development of society. His theory is that material conditions essentially comprise technological means
of production and human society is formed by the forces and relations of production.
Historical materialism is based upon a philosophy of human history. But it is not, strictly speaking, a
philosophy of history. It is best understood as sociological theory of human progress. As a theory it provides
a scientific and systematic research programme for empirical investigations. At the same time, it also claims
to contain within it a revolutionary programme of intervention into society. It is this unique combination of
scientific and revolutionary feature which is the hallmark of Marxs original formulation.
For Marx, human history is an account of development and consequences of new forces of material
production. This is the reason why his view of history is given the name of historical materialism.
CONTRIBUTION OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM TO SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Marxs introduced an entirely new element to understand the structure of each society. It was derived from
the relations between social classes. These relations were determined by the mode of production. It was this
feature of historical materialism which was widely accepted by later sociologists as offering a more
promising starting point for exact and realistic investigations of the causes of social change.
Secondly, historical materialism introduced into sociology a new method of inquiry, new concepts, and a
number of bold hypotheses to explain the rise, development, and decline of particular forms of society.
Thirdly, originality of historical materialism was in its immense effort to synthesise in a critical way, the
entire legacy of social knowledge since Aristotle. Marxs purpose was to achieve a better understanding of
the conditions of human development. With this understanding he tried to accelerate the actual process by
which mankind was moving toward an association, in which the free development of each was the condition
for the free development of all.
Lastly, historical materialism not only provides a method to understand the existing social reality; it is a
method to understand the existence of other methods. It is a persistent critique of the aims and methods of
social sciences.
PRODUCTION
People need food, clothing, shelter and other necessities of life in order to survive. They cannot get all these
things ready-made from nature. To survive, they produce material goods from objects found in nature.
Material production has always been and still is the basis of human existence. For Karl Marx, the history of
human societies is the story of how people relate to one another in their efforts to make a living. He said,
The first historical act isthe production of material life.
MODES OF PRODUCTIONIn Marxs writing, stages of social history are differentiated not by what human
beings produce but by how, or by what means, they produce the material goods for subsistence. In this way,
we can say that historical periods are founded and differentiated on the basis of the modes of material
production

2 | P a g e

A mode of production is the relationship between the relations of production and the forces of production.
DIFFERENT MODES OF PRODUCTION
Ancient Mode of Production Refers to a production system where the master has the right of ownership
over the slave and appropriates the products of his labour through servitude, without allowing the slave to
reproduce.
Slaves Class of producers in the ancient mode of production, who are directly controlled by the masters as
their private property.
Capitalist Mode of Production Refers to a production system where the owners of means of production,
capitalists, extract surplus labour from the proletariats in the form of profits.
Capitalists The ruling class in capitalism who control the means of production.
Bourgeoisie The class of capitalists who, in all developed countries, are now almost exclusively in possession
of all the means of consumption and of all the raw materials and instruments.
Workers Class of producers in the capitalist mode of production who have nothing except their labour
power as their only means of livelihood. Their surplus labour is appropriated by the capitalists through
profit.
Feudal Mode of Production Refers to a production system where the lords appropriate surplus labour from
the serfs in the form of rent.
Lords The ruling class in feudalism, who exercise indirect control over serfs.
Serfs Class of producers in the feudal mode of production whose surplus labour is appropriated through
rent.
Asiatic Mode of Production Refers to community-based production system where ownership of land is
communal and the existence of is expressed through the real or imaginary unity of these communities.
MARXS CONCEPT OF ALIENATION
Marx has conceived of alienation as a phenomenon related to the structure of those societies in which the
producer is divorced from the means of production and in which dead labour (capital) dominates living
labour (the worker
In Marxs sense alienation is an action through which (or a state in which) a person, a group, an institution,
or a society becomes (or remains) alien )
a) to the results or products of its own activity (and to the activity itself), and/or
b) to the nature in which it lives, and/or
c) to other human beings, and in addition and through any or all of (a) to (c) also
d) to itself (to its own historically created human possibilities).

3 | P a g e

Alienation is always self-alienation, i.e., ones alienation from oneself through ones own activity.
CLASS AND CLASS STRUGLE
The changes in the mode of production are essentially changes in the forces of production and relations of
production. In primitive communal stage there was no surplus production and hence it had no inequality
and exploitation caused by the private ownership of means of production. The means of production were
common property of the community. With the development and improvements in the forces of production
there was increased productivity. This caused private ownership of means of production and change in the
relations of production. This marked the end of primitive-communal system and thus began the long history
of inequality, exploitation and class conflict, coinciding with the emergence of slave-owning society.
In the slave-owning society the class conflict between the slave owners and slaves reached a peak causing a
change in the mode of production from slavery to feudalistic mode of production. This means that the entire
history of society is studded with different phases and periods of class struggle. This history of class struggle
begins in the slave-owning society and continues through feudal society where this class struggle is between
classes of the feudal lords and the landless agricultural labourers or serfs. Due to change in mode of
production and class struggle a new stage of society i.e., capitalism replaces the age-old feudal system.
In the capitalistic mode of production the class antagonism acquires most acute dimensions. The working
class movement begins to concretise and reaches its peak. Through a class conflict between the class of
capitalists and the class of industrial labourers, the capitalist system is replaced by socialism. This violent
change has been termed as revolution by Marx.

b) Emile Durkheim- Division of labour, social fact, suicide, religion and society.
Division of labour
Division of labour we mean the splitting up of an activity into a number of parts or smaller processes. These
smaller processes are undertaken by different persons or groups of persons, thereby speeding up the
performance of the activity. Division of labour implies specialisation, (i.e., each person becoming an expert
in his or her task) saving time and saving costs and at the same time increasing productivity.
Functions of Division of Labour
Durkheim classifies human societies into
i) those based on mechanical solidarity and
ii) those based on organic solidarity
Mechanical Solidarity refers to a solidarity of resemblance or likeness. There exists a great deal of
homogeneity and tightly-knit social bonds which serve to make the individual members one with their
society. The collective conscience is extremely strong.
By collective conscience we mean the system of beliefs and sentiments held in common by members of a
society which defines what their mutual relations ought to be. The strength of the collective conscience
integrates such societies, binding together individual members through strong beliefs and values. Violation
of or deviation from these values

4 | P a g e

Organic Solidarity - Durkheim means a solidarity based on difference and complementarity of differences.
Take factory, for example. There is a great deal of difference in the work, social status, income, etc. Of a
worker and a manager. Yet, the two complement each other. Being a manager is meaningless without the
cooperation of workers and workers need to be organised by managers. Thus they are vital for each others
survival.
Division of labour, says Durkheim, is the process that will help keep society integrated.As division of labour
implies working together at certain tasks, in other words, it implies cooperation. As work becomes more and
more divided, two consequences can be seen. On the one hand, each individual becomes specialised in his
field. He can exercise his initiative and creativity in his special field. On the other hand, each individual grows
to depend more intimately on society. Cooperation and complementarity are the watchwords of such a
society. The kind of solidarity produced, namely organic solidarity, is of a higher order than mechanical
solidarity. It allows individuals to exercise their freedom and initiative even while binding them to each other
and to society. Thus, the process, which helps the growth of both, individualism and social integration, is
division of labour

Causes of Division of Labour
Durkheim says the causes of division of labour lie in the fact that individuals need to cooperate and do a
variety of tasks in order that industrial society may survive. Durkheim stresses cooperation
Consequences of Division of Labour
Durkheim sees division of labour as a process that can be the basis of integration.
Solutions to the Problems Related to Division of Labour
Durkheim sees society as a system held together by the integrative contributions of its various institutions
Social facts
Durkhiem defines Social fact is that way of acting, thinking or feeling etc., which is more or less general in a
given society. Durkheim treated social facts as things. They are real and exist independent of the individuals
will or desire. They are external to individuals and are capable of exerting constraint upon them. In other
words they are coercive in nature.
Legal codes and customs, moral rules, religious beliefs and practices, language etc. are all social facts.
Types of Social Facts
Structural or morphological social facts
In this category of social facts are included the distribution of population over the surface of the territory,
the forms of dwellings, nature of communication system etc.
Secondly, tere are institutionalised forms of social facts.They are more or less general and widely spread in
society. They represent the collective nature of the society as a whole. Under this category fall legal and
moral rules, religious dogma and established beliefs and practices prevalent in a society.

5 | P a g e

Thirdly, there are social facts, which are not institutionalised.
Such social facts have not yet acquired crystallised forms. They lie beyond the institutionalised norms of
society. Also this category of social facts have not attained a total objective and independent existence
comparable to the institutionalised ones. Also their externality to and ascendancy over and above
individuals is not yet complete. These social facts have been termed as social currents. For example,
sporadic currents of opinion generated in specific situations; enthusiasm generated in a crowd; transitory
outbreaks in an assembly of people; sense of indignity or pity aroused by specific incidents, etc.
Normal and Pathological social facts
A social fact is normal when it is generally encountered in a society of a certain type at a certain phase in its
evolution. Every deviation from this standard is a pathological fact. For example, some degree of crime is
inevitable in any society. Hence according to Durkheim crime to that extent is a normal fact. However, an
extraordinary increase in the rate of crime is pathological. A general weakening in the moral condemnation
of crime and certain type of economic crisis leading to anarchy in society are other examples of pathological
facts.
Main Characteristics of Social Facts
The main characteristics of social facts are (i) externality, (ii) constraint, (iii) independence, and (iv)
generality.
Externality
Social facts, according to Durkheim, exist outside individual consciences. Their existence is external to the
individuals. An individual takes birth in a society and leaves it after birth death, however social facts are
already given in society and remain in existence irrespective of birth or death of an individual. For example
language continues to function independently of any single individual.
Constraint
The other characteristic of social fact is that it exercises a constraint on individuals. Social fact is recognized
because it forces itself on the individual. For example, the institutions of law, education, beliefs etc. Are
already given to everyone from without.
General and Independant
A social fact is that which has more or less a general occurrence in a society. Also it is independent of the
personal features of individuals or universal attributes of human nature. Examples are the beliefs, feelings
and practices of the group taken collectively.
Suicide
Durkhiem study showed that even a highly personal act like suicide is influenced by the social world.
According to Durkheim, however, suicide was a social fact that could only be explained by other social facts.
Suicide was more than simply the aggregate of individual acts- it was a phenomena that bore patterned
properties.

6 | P a g e

In examining official suicide records in france, Durkheim found that certain category of people were more
likely to commit suicide than others, he discovered for example that there were more suicides among men
than women, among protestants as opposed to catholics, among single over married couple. Durkheim also
noted that suicide rates tended to be lower during tomes of war and higher during times of economic
change and instability.
According to Durkhiem there are four type of suicides.
Egoistic Suicides
Egoistic suicides are marked by low integration in society and occur when an individual is isolated, or when
his or her ties to a group are weakened or broken.
Anomic Suicides
Anomic suicide is caused by a lack social regulation. The loss of a fixed point of reference for norms and
desires such as times of economic upheaval or in personal struggles like divorce can upset the balance
between peoples and circumstances and their desires.
Altiruistic Suicide occurs when an individual is `over-integrated - social bonds are too strong and values
society more than himself or herself. In such cases suicide becomes a sacrifice for the `greater good.
Durkhiem saw these as characteristics of traditional societies where mechanical solidarity prevails.
The final type of suicide is fatalistic suicide Although Durkhiem saw this as of little contemporary relevance,
he believed that its result when an individual is over regulated by society. The oppression of the individual
results in a feeling of powerlessness before fate or society.
Suicide rates vary between societies but show regular pattern within societies over time. Durkhiem took this
as evidence that there are consistent social forces that influence suicide rates reveals how general social
patterns can be detected within individual actions.
Religion and Society
Durkhiem points out that religion is as concerned with the ordinary as the extraordinary aspects of life. To
define religion, he says, the various religious systems of the world must be examined in order to derive
those elements, or characteristics, which they have in common. As Durkheim (1912: 38) puts it, religion
cannot be defined except by the characters which are found wherever religion itself is found.
According to Durkheim, all religions comprise two basic components, namely, beliefs and rites. Beliefs are
the collective representations
1
Durkheim presuppose the classification of all things into sacred and
profane. There is an opposition between these two spheres which has to be carefully regulated through
rites and ceremonies. The sacred is that which is set apart, considered holy and venerated or dreaded and
avoided. The sacred is usually in a higher position, valued more than profane things, and its identity and
power are protected by social rules. The profane, on the other hand, refers to the mundane, ordinary
aspects of day-to-day existence. The sacred and profane are kept apart, says Durkheim, because they are
heterogeneous (different), antagonistic (in conflict) and isolated (separated). Rites therefore exist to
mediate between the two worlds.
Beliefs and rites, says Durkheim, unite to form religion. Beliefs are the moral ideas, the rules, the teachings
and myths. They are the collective representations which exist outside of the individual, yet integrate the

7 | P a g e

individual into the religious system. Through beliefs, human beings understand the sacred and their
relationship to it. They can lead their lives accordingly.
Rites are the rules of conduct that follow from beliefs, which prescribe how human beings must behave
With regard to sacred things. They can be positive, where the sacred is sought to be brought closer to the
world of men, for example, through havan or sacrifice. Rites can be negative, which means the sacred and
profane are sought to be kept apart, e.g. purification rites, fasts, penance or suffering. In Durkheims view
rites serve to sustain the intensity of religious-beliefs. They bring individuals together, strengthening their
social natures. They are modes of expression of the collective conscience, which, as you have studied, refers
to the commonly held values, beliefs and ideas of the community
(c) Max Weber- Social action, ideal types, authority, bureaucracy, protestant ethic and the spirit of
capitalism.
Social Action
According to Max Weber Sociology is a science which attempts the interpretative understanding of social
action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its cause and effects. Here we can point out the
following important elements of social action
i) social action includes all human behaviour.
ii) social action attaches a subjective meaning to it.
iii) the acting individual or individuals take into account the behaviour of others.
iv) social action is oriented in its course.
Action is social when the actor behaves in such a manner that his action is intended to influence the action
of one or more other persons.
Weber has talked about four types of social actions. These are i) Zweckrational or rational action with
reference to goals, ii) Wertrational or rational action with reference to values, iii) traditional action and iv)
affective action.
Types of Social Action.
i) Zweckrational action or rational action in relation to a goal
. This activity is directed towards obtaining that goal.
ii) Wertrational action, or rational action in relation to a value
It is for the sake of certain values like honour and patriotism.
iii) Affective action
This kind of action results from the emotional state of mind of the actor. If some one is teasing a girl in a bus,
she may get so irritated that she may slap the offending person. She has been provoked so much that she
has reacted violently.

8 | P a g e

iv) Traditional action
This is an action, which is guided by customs and longstanding beliefs, which become second nature or
habit. In traditional Indian society, doing pranam or namaskar to elders is almost second nature needing
no prompting

Ideal Type
Ideal types are concepts formulated on the basis of facts collected carefully and analytically for empirical
research. In this sense, ideal types are constructs or concepts which are used as methodological devices or
tools in our understanding and analysis of any social problem.
Construction of The Ideal Type
For the construction of ideal types, the sociologist selects a certain number of traits from the whole which is
otherwise confusing and obscure, to constitute an intelligible entity.
Characteristics of Ideal Types
i) Ideal types are not general or average types.
ii) Ideal types are not a presentation of total reality or they do not explain everything. They exhibit partial
conception of the whole.
iii) Ideal types are neither a description of any definite concept of reality, nor a hypothesis, but they can aid
both in description and explanation.
iv) In this sense we can say that ideal types are also related to the analytic conception of causality, though
not, in deterministic terms.
v) They also help in reaching to general propositions and in comparative analysis.
vi) Ideal types serve to guide empirical research, and are used in systematisation of data on historical and
social reality.
IDEAL TYPES IN WEBERS WORK
The first kind of ideal types are rooted in the historical particularities namely, Western Ideal Types city, the
Protestant ethics etc. In reality, this kind of ideal types refer to the phenomena that appear only in the
specific historical periods and in particular cultural areas. The second kind relates to the abstract elements
of social reality, for example, the concepts of bureaucracy or feudalism. These elements of social reality are
found in a variety of historical and cultural contexts. The third kind of ideal type relates to the reconstruction
of a particular kind of behaviour.
Herrschaft(Authority)
Herrschaft is a situation in which a Herr or master dominates or commands others. Raymond Aron (1967:
187) defines Herrschaft as the masters ability to obtain the obedience of those who theoretically owe it to
him.

9 | P a g e

Elements of Authority
i) An individual ruler/master or a group of rulers/masters.
ii) An individual/group that is ruled.
iii) The will of the ruler to influence the conduct of the ruled which may be expressed through commands.
iv) Evidence of the influence of the rulers in terms of compliance or obedience shown by the ruled.
v) Direct or indirect evidence which shows that the ruled have internalised and accepted the fact that the
rulers commands must be obeyed.
Types of Authority
Traditional Authority
This system of legitimation flows from traditional action. In other words, it is based on customary law and
the sanctity of ancient traditions. It is based on the belief that a certain authority is to be respected because
it has existed since time immemorial.
Charismatic Authority
Charisma means an extraordinary quality possessed by some individuals . This gives such people unique
powers to capture the fancy and devotion of ordinary people. Charismatic authority is based on
extraordinary devotion to an individual and to the way of life preached by this person. The legitimacy of
such authority rests upon the belief in the supernatural or magical powers of the person. The charismatic
leader proves his/her power through miracles, military and other victories or the dramatic prosperity of the
disciples. As long as charismatic leaders continue to prove their miraculous powers in the eyes of their
disciples, their authority stays intact.
Rational-legal Authority
The term refers to a system of authority, which are both, rational and legal. It is vested in a regular
administrative staff who operate in accordance with certain written rules and laws. Those who exercise
authority are appointed to do so on the basis of their achieved qualifications, which are prescribed and
codified. Those in authority consider it a profession and are paid a salary. Thus, it is a rational system.
It is legal because it is in accordance with the laws of the land which people recognise and feel obliged to
obey. The people acknowledge and respect the legality of both, the ordinance and rules as well as the
positions or titles of those who implement the rules.
Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy, as just mentioned, is the machinery, which implements rational-legal authority. Max Weber
studied bureaucracy in detail and constructed an ideal type which contained the most prominent
characteristics of bureaucracy.
Major Features of Bureaucracy
i) In order that the bureaucracy may function adequately, it relies on the following rules and regulations.

10 | P a g e

a) The activities which comprise bureaucracy are distributed among the officials in the form of official duties.
b) There is a stable or regular system by which officials are vested with authority. This authority is strictly
delimited by the laws of the land.
c) There are strict and methodical procedures which ensure that officials perform their duties adequately.
ii) The second feature of bureaucracy is that there is a hierarchy of officials in authority. By this we mean
that there is a firmly built structure of subordination and superordination. Lower officials are supervised by
higher ones and are answerable to them.
iii) The management of the bureaucratic office is carried out through written documents or files. They are
preserved and properly kept by clerks who are specially appointed for this purpose.
iv) The work in the bureaucratic office is highly specialised and staff is trained accordingly.
v) A fully developed bureaucratic office demands the full working capacity of the staff. In such a case,
officials may be compelled to work over-time.
Characteristics of Officials in Bureaucracy
Weber mentions the following characteristics of officials in a bureaucratic set-up
i) Office-work is a vocation for officials.
ii) They are specially trained for their jobs.
iii) Their qualifications determine their position or rank in the office.
iv) They are expected to do their work honestly.
Their official positions also have a bearing on their personal lives. Let us see how.
i) Bureaucratic officials enjoy a high status in society.
ii) Often, their jobs carry transfer liabilities. By this we mean that they may be transferred from one place or
department to another leading to some instability in their professional and personal lives.
iii) Officials receive salaries not in accordance with productivity but status. The higher their rank, the higher
their salaries. They also receive benefits like pension, provident fund, medical and other facilities. Their jobs
are considered very secure.
iv) Officials enjoy good career prospects. They can move from the lower rungs of the bureaucratic ladder to
higher ones if they work in a disciplined manner.

THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM
Weber located a positive relationship between the Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism. Western
capitalism, according to Weber, assumed its shape because it was supported by a certain belief system,

11 | P a g e

namely, the Protestant ethic. Weber argued that the Protestant ethic is closely associated with the spirit
of capitalism.
The Spirit of Capitalism
According to Weber, the capitalists desired wealth not for enjoyment or luxurious living. They wanted it so
that they could use it to make more wealth. The thirst for money-making for its own sake is the very essence
of modern capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system which aims at the unlimited accumulation of profit
through the rational organisation of production.
The Protestant Ethic: Features Influencing the Development of Capitalism
Let us first clarify a few historical details. What is Protestantism? As the name suggests, it is a religion of
protest. It arose in the sixteenth century in Europe in the period known as the Reformation.
Its founding fathers like Martin Luther and John Calvin broke away from the Catholic Church. They felt that
the Church had become too immersed in doctrines and rituals. It had lost touch with the common people.
Greed, corruption and vice had gripped the Church. Priests had a life-style more suitable for princes.
The Protestant sects that sprang up all over Europe tried to recapture the lost spirit of the Church. They
stressed simplicity, austerity and devotion. Calvinism founded by the Frenchman John Calvin was one such
sect.
Weber summarised the Calvinist ethic in five points.
a) There exists an absolute transcendent God who created the world and rules it, but who is
incomprehensible and inaccessible to the finite minds of men.
b) This all powerful and mysterious God had predestined each of us to salvation or damnation, so that we
cannot by our works alter a divine decree which was made before we were born.
c) God created the world for His own glory.
d) Whether he is to be saved or damned, man is obliged to work for the glory of God and to create the
Kingdom of God on earth.
e) Earthly things, human nature, and flesh belong to the order of sin and death and salvation can come to
man only through divine grace.
This helped to create a disciplined and dedicated workforce without which
capitalism could not have emerged..

d) Talcolt Parsons- Social system, pattern variables.
A social system has been defined by Mitchell (1979: 203) as consisting of a plurality of al actors interacting
directly or indirectly with each other in a bounded situation. There may be physical or territorial boundaries
but the main point of reference sociologically is that here individuals are oriented, in a wide sense, to a
common focus or interrelated foci.

12 | P a g e

BASIC UNIT OF ORGANISATION OF A SOCIAL SYSTEM
The Motivational Orientation
The range of motivational orientations are three. These are the cognitive, the cathectic and the evaluative
orientations.
i) The cognitive orientation makes actors see their environment or object in relation to their need
dispositions as a mental object. They, i.e. the actors, attempt to understand the objectivity of the subject
matter of observation.
ii) The cathectic orientation involves emotional attitude of actors towards their object.
iii) The evaluative orientation leads the actors to organise their effort in realisation of their object with
optimum efficiency. Take for example the behaviour of a housewife going to the market to purchase
vegetables. The cognitive orientation enables her to judge the quality
of vegetables in relation to her need and need in relation to its prices, the cathectic orientation would
determine as to which vegetable she likes more than the others, and the evaluative orientation would make
it possible for her to make a choice of a vegetable which gives her maximum satisfaction.
The Value Orientation
The range of value orientations also comprises three parts. These are the cognitive, the appreciative and the
moral.
i) The cognitive orientation is one, which relates to the issue of validity of judgement.
ii) The appreciative orientation is that which makes it possible for actors to judge their emotional response
to object, its appropriateness or consistency.
iii) The moral orientation is one, which refers to value commitment of an actor towards his or her objects.
PATTERN VARIABLES
In order to develop concepts, which could reflect the properties of all action systems, Parsons was led to a
set of concepts, which could bring out the variable properties of these systems. These concepts are termed
pattern variables.
There are in all five pattern variables, each side of it represents one polar extreme. These pattern variables
are
i) affectivity versus affective neutrality
ii) self-orientation versus collectivity orientation
iii) universalism versus particularism
iv) ascription versus achievement
v) specificity versus diffuseness.

13 | P a g e

Affectivity versus Affective Neutrality
Affectivity versus affective neutrality concerns the dilemma of role performance where evaluation is
involved in relation to a situation. How much should a situation be evaluated in emotional terms or with a
degree of emotional neutrality? This poses a difficult choice in most roles that we are expected to perform in
society. Take for example the mother-child
relationship. It has high degree of affective orientation, but discipline is also required. So on many occasions
a mother would have to exercise affective-neutral role in relation to her childs socialisation. But
motherchild relationship is essentially dominated by affectivity. In comparison, doctor-patient relationship
brings out the aspect of affective neutrality that
characterises a doctors role. Affective-neutrality is essential for proper medical care, especially where
surgical treatments are involved. But according to Parsons in all role performance situations the dilemma of
choice and its degree of expression or commitment remains.
Self-orientation versus Collectivity Orientation
Similarly, in self-orientation versus collectivity orientation pattern variable the main issue is that of moral
standard in the procedure of evaluation. The moral standard arises from the fact that actor has to make a
choice between his or her own gratification and its deferment for the good of a larger number of people, a
collectivity. Some form of altruism and selfsacrifice is involved. The dilemma of this pattern variable has
always been present in human life from primitive mode of economy and society to modern civilisation. The
notion of socialist society and socialist consciousness offers us a good example where a whole social system
and patterns of its institutions are based on the dominant choice in favour of
collectivity orientation. But as Parsons has rightly pointed out, institutionalisation of such values is always
fragile. This is because the response to the situation by the actor is always in the form of a dilemma.
Universalism versus Particularism
Universalism versus particularism is a pattern variable which defines the role situation where the actors
dilemma is between the cognitive versus the cathective (or emotional standards) evaluation. A very good
example of roles adhering to universalistic standards of human behaviour are role performances which go
strictly by legal norms and legal sanctions. It one abides by the rule of law irrespective of personal, kinship or
friendship
considerations, then that would be an example of the universalistic mode of role performance. If one
violates legal norms only because the person involved is a kin or a friend, then particularistic considerations
would be said to be operating. Parsons says that in societies where the role of the bureaucracy of formal
organisations and modern institutions have become widespread there the dilemmas of Universalism and
particularism have
become a matter of choice in everyday life.
Ascription versus Achievement
The actors dilemma in the ascription versus achievement pattern variable is based on whether or not the
actor defines the objects of his or her role either in terms of quality or performance. In India a very good
example of this pattern variable is the role performance governed by the caste system. In the caste system,

14 | P a g e

the statuses of persons are determined not on the basis of their personal achievement or personal skills or
knowledge but on the
basis of their birth. Ascription is based on assigning certain quality to a person either by birth, or age, or sex
or kinship or race. Achievement is based on personal acquisition of skills and levels of performance in
society.
Specificity versus Diffuseness
The specificity versus diffuseness pattern variable concerns the scope of the object of role performance.
Scope, in this case, is to be understood in terms of the nature of social interaction.
Some social interactions, such as between doctors and patients or between buyers and sellers of goods in
the market, have a very specific scope. The nature of these interactions is defined in terms of a very precise
context of interaction. A doctor does not have to understand the social, financial or political background of
his or her patients in order to treat them and to give them a prescription. Doctors task is very specific. So is
the case of
sellers of commodities in the market, who do not have to know the general details of the life of their
customers. Such roles are specific in terms of the standards of response between actors.
On the contrary, some role relationships are very general and encompassing in nature. Such roles involve
several aspects of the object of interaction. Some examples of such role relationships are friendship,
conjugal relationship between husband and wife, relationships between kin of various degrees. All these
relationships are such where the actor does not
interact with another in a relationship in a specific context as such, but in a diffused manner such as in case
of two close friends. The scope of interaction is flexible, open and encompassing in nature.

Robert K. Merton- Latent and manifest functions, conformity and deviance, reference groups.
Function, Dysfunction, Manifest Function and Latent Function
It is now clear that functions are those observed consequences, which make for the adaptation or
adjustment of a given system. But, then not everything is functional. Not everything helps to make for the
adaptation of a system.
So Merton uses another concept called dysfunction. Dysfunctions, according to Merton, are those observed
consequences, which lesson the adaptation or adjustment of the system.
Imagine your own society.
Modern India, you would agree, intends to be mobile, democratic, participatory and egalitarian. In such a
society the institution of caste, far from having a function, has dysfunctions. Instead of intensifying the
democratic ideal, caste tends to lessen the degree of mobility, democratisation and participation. That is
why, castes may be classified as dysfunctional.
With these clarifications it is no longer difficult for you to come to the main problem, manifest function and
latent function. Be it a manifest function or a latent function, it is the objective, observed consequence

15 | P a g e

which makes for the adaptation or adjustment of a given system. There is, however, only one difference and
it goes to the credit of Merton that he is able to bring it out sharply and intelligently. Whereas the
participants are aware of the manifest function, they are not aware of the latent function. In other words,
the latent function is neither intended nor recognised.
Why is this so? This is because the participants can see what is immediately isible; they cannot always see
the deeper or latent meaning of what they do. But for social scientists, the task is to go beyond the common
sense perception of the participants and see the latent consequences of social practices.
Think of Emile Durkheims famous analysis of the social functions of punishment. Its immediate, manifest
function is obvious. Everyone knows it. It reminds the criminal that society would not permit his deviance.
But, then, it has a latent function too, which is not generally recognised. The latent function of punishment,
Durkheim would argue, is not what happens to the criminal; instead, it is deeper; it intensifies societys faith
in its
collective conscience; the punishment of the criminal is an occasion that reminds the society of its force and
its collective morals.
What is reference group?
A reference group is one to which you always refer in order to evaluate your achievements, your role
performance, your aspirations and ambitions. It is only a reference group that tells you whether you are
right or wrong, whether whatever you are doing, you are doing badly or well.
The fact, therefore, is that not solely membership groups, even non membership groups act like reference
groups. Human beings look at themselves not solely through the eyes of their group members, but also
through the eyes of those who belong to other groups.
Concept of Group and Group Membership
i) First, there is an objective criterion, viz., the frequency of interaction. In other words, the sociological
concept of a group refers to a number of people frequently interact with one another.
ii) A second criterion is that the interacting persons define themselves as members. In other words, they feel
that they have patterned expectations or forms of interaction, which are morally binding on them and on
other members.
iii) The third criterion is that the persons in interaction are defined by others as belonging to the group.
These others include fellow members as well as non-members.
Concept of Non-Membership
non-members can be divided into three categories.
i) Some may aspire to membership in the group
ii) Others may be indifferent toward such affiliation
iii) Still others may be motivated to remain unaffiliated with the group.

16 | P a g e

Think of an example. Suppose your father is an industrialist owning a factory. Naturally, as far as the workers
in the factory are concerned, you are a non-member. You do not belong to their group. There are, however,
three possibilities. Suppose you are deeply sensitive, you have read Marx and you tend to believe seriously
that it is the working class that alone can create a new world free from injustice and exploitation. In other
words, despite being a non-member, you want to belong to the workers, share their experiences and,
accordingly, alter your life-style. Then, as Merton would say, a non-membership group becomes a positive
reference group for you.
Then, there is anot her possibility. You do not bother. You are contented with your contemporary existence
and as a result the workers do not have any impact on your life. In other words, you remain a non-member
and never do you want to belong to the group of the workers.
Now think of the third possibility. You remain a non-member, but instead of remaining indifferent you hate
the workers, you feel that the workers are neither intelligent nor educated, and that there is nothing to
admire in their culture. In order to retain your status and separate yourself from the workers, you evolve
counter-norms. Then, the workers, Merton would say, constitute a negative reference group.
Conformity and Deviance
Deviance may be defined as non conformity to a given set of norms that are accepted by a significant
number of people in community or society. No society as has already been stressed can be divided up in a
simple way between those who deviate from norms and those who conform to them. Most of us on some
occasions transgress generally accepted rules of behaviour. We may, for example have at some point
committed minor acts of theft, like shoplifting or taking small items from work such as office notepapers
and pens for personal use. At some time, we may have exceeded the speed limit, made phone calls or
smoked marijuana.
Criminology Criminology concerns itself with the forms of behaviour that are sanctioned by criminal law,
criminologists are often interested in techniques for measuring crime, trends in crime rates and policies
aimed at reducing crime within the community.
Sociology of Deviance draws on criminological research, but also investigates conduct which lies beyond the
realm of criminal law. Sociologists studying deviant behaviour seek to understand why certain behaviours
are widely as deviant and how these notions of deviance are applied differentially to people within society.
The study of deviance, therefore directs our attention to social power, as well as to the influence of social
class the divisions between rich and poor. When we look at deviance from or conformity to social rules
and norms, we always have to bear in mind the question, whose rules? As we shall see, social norms are
strongly influenced by division power and class.
Theories of deviance
Functionalist theories see crime and deviance as produced by structural tensions and lack of moral
regulation with in the society. Durkhiem introduced the tem Anomie to refer to a feeling of anxiety and
disorientation that comes with the breakdown of traditional life in modern society.
Robert K. Merton extended the concept to include the strain felt by individuals whenever norms conflict
with social reality. Sub cultural explanations draw attention to groups such as gangs that reject mainstream
values and replace them with norms celebrating defiance, delinquency or non conformity.

17 | P a g e

Labelling theory (which assumes that labelling someone as deviant will reinforce their deviant behaviour) is
important because it starts from the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal (or normal). Labelling
theorists are interested in how some behaviours come to be defined as deviant and why certain groups, but
not others are labelled as deviant.
Conflict theories analyse crime and deviance in terms of the structure of society, competing interest
between social groups and preservation of power among elites.
Control theorists posit that crime occurs when there are inadequate social or physical controls to defer it
from happening. The growth of crime is linked to the growing number of opportunities and targets for crime
in modern societies. The theory of broken windows suggests that there is a direct connection between the
appearance of disorder and actual crime.
Rates of criminality are much lower for women than for men, probably because of general socialisation
differences between men and women, plus the grater involvement of men in non domestic spheres.
Unemployment and the crisis of masculinity have been linked to male crime rates. In some type of crime,
women are overwhelmingly the victims, Rape is almost certainly much more common than the official
statistics reveal. There is the sense in which all women are victims of rape, since they have to take special
precautions for their protection and in a fear of rape. Homosexual men and women experience high levels of
harassment, yet they are often seen as deserving of crime rather than innocent victims because of their
marginalised position in society.
Conformity
Conformity is a change in behavior or belief toward a group standard as a result of the groups influence on
an individual. As this definition indicates, conformity is a type of social influence through which group
members come to share similar beliefs
and standards of behavior. It includes the processes by which group members converge on a
given standard of belief or behavior as well as the pressures they exert on one another to uphold such
standards. Compliance is behavioral conformity in order to achieve rewards or avoid punishments (Kelman
1958). Since one can behaviourally adhere to a group standard without personally believing in it, the term is
often used to indicate conformity that is merely public rather than private as well. Compliance can also refer
to behavioural conformity to the request or demand of another, especially an authority.


Self and Identity in Sociology
Self
The symbolic interactionist perspective in sociological social psychology sees the self as emerging
out of the mind, the mind as arising and developing out of social interaction, and patterned social
interaction as forming the basis of social structure (Mead, 1934). The mind is the thinking part of the self.
It is covert action in which the organism points out meanings to itself and to others. The ability to point
out meanings and to indicate them to others and to itself is made possible by language, which
encapsulates meanings in the form of symbols. When ones self is encapsulated as a set of symbols to
which one may respond to itself as an object, as it responds to any other symbol, the self has emerged.
The hallmark of this process of selfhood is reflexivity. Humans have the ability to reflect back upon
themselves, taking themselves as objects. They are able to regard and evaluate themselves, to take

18 | P a g e

account of themselves and plan accordingly to bring about future states, to be self-aware or achieve
consciousness with respect to their own existence. In this way, humans are a processual entity. They
formulate and reflect, and this is ongoing.
To be clear, the responses of the self as an object to itself come from the point of view of others to
whom one interacts. By taking the role of the other and seeing ourselves for others perspectives, our
responses come to be like others responses, and the meaning of the self becomes a shared meaning. Thus,
paradoxically, as the self emerges as a distinct object, there is at the same time a merger of perspectives of
the self and others, and a becoming as one with the others with whom one interacts. This becoming as one
is possible through the shared meanings of the objects and symbols to which individuals respond in
interaction. In using language, individuals communicate the same meanings to themselves as to others.
The self is, thus, both individual and social in character. It works to control meanings to sustain itself, but
many of those meanings, including the meanings of the self, are shared and form the basis of interaction
with others and ultimately social structure.
Self-Concept. Over time, as humans point out who they are to themselves and to others, they come to
develop a concept/view of who they are. Here, humans are an entity that embodies content and a
structure. Sociologists have spent considerable time in understanding the content and structure of the self:
ones self-concept. Early views of the self-concept were concerned only with self-evaluation. Selfconcept
often meant self-esteem (ones evaluation of oneself in affective (negative or positive) terms))
(cf., Rosenberg, 1979). To broaden this view, Rosenberg (1979) suggested that there was more to the
selfconcept
than self-esteem. He defined the self-concept as the sum total of our thoughts, feelings, and
imaginations as to who we are. Later conceptions elaborated and refined this view suggesting that the
self-concept was made up of cognitive components (given the collection of identities) as well as affective
components or self-feelings including self-esteem (both worth-based and efficacy-based self-esteem)
(Franks & Marolla, 1976; Stryker, 1980).
In general, the self-concept is the set of meanings we hold for ourselves when we look at ourselves. It
is based on our observations of ourselves, our inferences about who we are, based on how others act
toward us, our wishes and desires, and our evaluations of ourselves. The self-concept includes not onlyour
idealized views of who we are that are relatively unchanging, but also our self-image or working copyof our
self-views that we import into situations and that is subject to constant change and revision basedon
situational influences (Burke, 1980). It is this self-image that guides moment-to-moment interaction,
ischanged in situated negotiation, and may act back on the more fundamental self-views.For sociological
social psychologists, the self-concept emerges out of the reflected appraisal process
(Gecas & Burke, 1995). Although some of our self-views are gained by direct experience with our
environment, most of what we know about ourselves is derived from others. According to the reflected
appraisal process, which is based on the looking glass self (Cooley, 1902),1 significant others
communicate their appraisals of us, and this influences the way we see ourselves. In a now classic reviewof
studies on the reflected appraisal process, Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979) found that rather than ourself-
concepts resembling the way others actually see us, our self-concepts are filtered through our
perceptions and resemble how we think others see us.
Felson (1993) summarizes a program of research in which he has attempted to explain why
individuals are not very accurate in judging what others think of them. Among the causes of the
discrepancy is the apprehension of others to reveal their views. At best they may reveal primarily
favorable views rather than both favorable and unfavorable views. Consistent with other research
(DePaulo, Kenny, Hoover, Webb, & Oliver, 1987; Kenney & Albright, 1987), Felson finds that
individuals have a better idea of how groups see them than how specific individuals see them.
Presumably, individuals learn the group standards and then apply those standards. In turn, when group
members judge individuals, they use the same standards that individuals originally applied to themselves.
Thus we find a correspondence in self-appraisals and others appraisals of the self.
In our investigation of the reflected appraisal process with newly married couples, we find that social

19 | P a g e

status derived from ones position in the social structure also influences the appraisal process. The spouse
with the higher status (education, occupation, and income) in the marriage is more likely to not only
influence their partners self-views, but also their partners views of them (Cast, Stets, & Burke, 1999).
Spouses with a lower status in the marriage have less influence on the self-view of their higher status
counterparts or on how their higher-status counterparts view them.
Self-Evaluation. The aspect of the self-concept that has received a significant amount of attention in
sociological social psychology is the evaluative part of the self-concept, better known as self-esteem
(Rosenberg, 1979). Two dimensions of self-esteem have been identified: efficacy-based self-esteem
(seeing oneself as competent and capable) and worth-based self-esteem (feeling that one is accepted and
valued) (Gecas & Schwalbe, 1983). Others have labeled the distinction inner self-esteem (being
effective) and outer self-esteem (acceptance by others) (Franks & Marolla, 1976). As Gecas and Burke
(1995) point out, the significant interest in self-esteem is largely due to assuming that high self-esteem
iassociated with good outcomes such as personal success while low self-esteem is associated with bad
outcomes such as deviance. While these associations are a bit misleading since research does not always
show such consistency in these outcomes, part of the inconsistency may be rooted, among other things, in
measuring self-esteem in global terms rather than more specific terms (Hoelter, 1986; Rosenberg,
Schooler, Schoenbach, & Rosenberg, 1995).2 Nevertheless, self-esteem remains a high profile topic of
investigation and has been examined from a variety of different viewpoints: as an outcome (Rosenberg,
1979), as a buffer against stress (Longmore & DeMaris, 1997), and as a motive that directs behavior
(Kaplan, 1975; Tesser, 1988).
Cast and Burke (1999) use identity theory as a theoretical framework for the integration of these
different conceptualizations of self-esteem. They argue that self-esteem is intimately tied to the identity
verification process. 3 They point out that: 1) high self-esteem has been found as an outcome of the
identity verification process (Burke & Stets, 1999), 2) high self-esteem that is generated from the identity
verification process can act as a buffer or resource when the verification process fails, and 3) the desire
for self-esteem may be what motivates people to create and maintain situations or relationships that verify
ones identity. They also argue that the two components of self-esteem (worth-based and efficacy-based)
are each rooted primarily in the different bases of identities. They argue that verification of group-based
identities has a stronger impact on worth-based self-esteem while verification of role-based identities has
a stronger impact on efficacy-based self-esteem. Analyzing data from a sample of newly married couples,
their results support the integration of the different viewpoints on self-esteem into identity theory.
If (worth-based) self-esteem is a source of motivation, so too is self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982). Selfefficacy
is seeing oneself as a causal agent in ones life. As Bandura (1995) points out, efficacy is a belief
about ones causative capabilities. Whether one actually has control, objectively, is less relevant than
what one perceives to be the case. Like self-esteem, positive outcomes have been associated with high
self-efficacy such as effectively coping with lifes stresses and adopting good health habits (Bandura,
1995). Our own research finds that identity verification not only enhances feelings of self-worth as noted
above, but also feelings of control over ones environment (Burke & Stets, 1999). Some have also
recently linked self-esteem with efficacy by arguing that people with high self-esteem should also tend to
perceive themselves as competent and, in turn, exhibit more involvement in social movements to try to
effect social change (Owens & Aronson, 2000).
Identity
Because the self emerges in social interaction within the context of a complex, organized,
differentiated society, it has been argued that the self must be complex, organized and differentiated as
8
well, reflecting the dictum that the self reflects society (Stryker, 1980). This idea is rooted in James
(1890) notion that there are as many different selves as there are different positions that one holds in
society and thus different groups who respond to the self. This is where identity enters into the overall
self. The overall self is organized into multiple parts (identities), each of which is tied to aspects of the
social structure. One has an identity, an internalized positional designation (Stryker, 1980, p. 60), for

20 | P a g e

each of the different positions or role relationships the person holds in society. Thus, self as father is an
identity, as is self as colleague, self as friend, and self as any of the other myriad of possibilities
corresponding to the various roles one may play. The identities are the meanings one has as a group
member, as a role-holder, or as a person. What does it mean to be a father, or a colleague, or a friend?
These meanings are the content of the identities.
Most interaction is between persons who occupy positions (statuses) in groups or organizations in
society. Interaction is thus not between whole persons, but between aspects of persons having to do with
their roles and memberships in particular groups or organizations: their identities. As a parent, we talk
with our children. As a spouse, we talk to our partner. As a member of an organization, we talk to our
employer. An assumption and implication of the above is that any identity is always related to a
corresponding counter-identity (Burke, 1980). When one claims an identity in an interaction with others,
there is an alternative identity claimed by another to which it is related. The husband identity is enacted as
it relates to the wife identity, the teacher identity is played out in relation to the student identity and so
forth. In each of these cases, there are things that are not talked about because they are not relevant to that
identity, and there are things that are more likely to be talked about given the identity that is currently
being claimed. There are various styles of interaction that are appropriate in each situation for each
identity. We move into and out of these modalities very easily, and generally with very little thought.
Often we operate in two or more identities at a time as in being both a friend and colleague.
In examining the nature of interaction between identities of different persons, we can take two
different perspectives: agency and social structure. In terms of social structure, we can focus on the
external and talk about actors taking a role or playing a role. Here, the social structure in which the
9
identities are embedded is relatively fixed and people play out the roles that are given to them. Teachers
do the things that teachers are supposed to do. Variations across persons taking on the same identities are
viewed as relatively minor, except insofar as they impact the success (or failure) of a group or
organization. Essentially, the social structure persists and develops according to its own principles;
individuals are recruited into positions and individuals leave positions, but for the most part the positions
remain.
But there is also agency. As agents, individuals can make or create a role by making behavioral
choices and decisions and engaging in negotiation and compromise as well as conflict. Research finds that
making roles and accumulating role identities fosters greater psychological well-being (Thoits, 2001).
Furthermore, Thoits finds that the reverse is also true: greater psychological well-being allows individuals
to actively acquire multiple role identities over time, particularly voluntary role identities such as
neighbor and churchgoer. When individuals feel good about themselves they take on more identities. In
general, therefore, examining the nature of interaction between identities means addressing both social
structure and agency. We must go back and forth and understand how social structure is the
accomplishment of actors, but also how actors always act within the social structure they create.